The Facts about Weld Porosity   As printed in The Welder Magazine

Do you give the Welder "test taking tips"? -or- Do you shut up and let the Welder pass or fail on their own?

So, a company is paying you to help them comply with AWS/D1.1 You've written the WPS's and now it's time to qualify the Welders. Do you give the Welder "test taking tips"? -or- Do you shut up and let the Welder pass or fail on their own? -and- Once they fail, do you give the Welder test taking tips before the re-test?

Keep in mind the premise... a 3rd party inspector helping a company that requested it, comply with AWS-D1.1

Often, in fact usually, when I'm in this situation, it's a small company looking to bid on a job that is requiring them to do something they've never had to do before; show proof of compliance to the structural welding code. These companies are too small to have a Welding Engineer on staff and wouldn't have a Certified Inspector. Generally, what I find, they have a Welder they've hired, or has been working for them for some time. His/Her qualification documents (if any) are from a previous employer. The company is counting on their Welder to know all that is needed to know about welding the product.

I'll also find that the company needing to comply with AWS-D1.1 doesn't own a copy of the code (or the copy they have is 2-3 revisions old).  So now they've called me to see if I can help them out. I'll typically tour the shop, view the product, watch how the sausage is made... then I'll come up with a list of recommendations;

• These are the codes you need to comply with (typically D1.1 and D1.3, but often others as well).
• These are the Pre-Qualified WPS's needed.
• These are the Qualified WPS's needed.
• These are the Welder Qualifications required.

Total cost can easily fall around $3k-$10k, so we break it into small chunks. 1st the Pre-Qualified WPS's, then some Welder Quals... and that brings us back to my original question, "Do you give the Welder test taking tips?"

I'm going to provide the Welders a detailed WPS. I'll provide detailed test instructions. I'll let them know the acceptance criteria (visually acceptable root pass, cover reinforcement/crown not greater than 1/8"...). I'll answer every question they'll ask. Beyond that, I have to leave them on their own. Under this scenario I have to know / they have to know, "Do the skills and techniques that they have/use today get them the required result?" Most of the time, they do not. Failing the Welder Qualification test shows the Welder and the company that the process they currently have in place doesn't work. Something needs to change.

Had I offered helpful tips on the initial Welder Qualification, and the test fail, the only response would be, "The Inspector told me to ____ and that's why I failed." On the retest I will always ask, "Can I give you some tips?", but never on their initial test.

In a School or Training situation, that is a different scenario, but this isn't training. This is determining if the process you currently have in place yields the result you need and if not, what needs to change.

Thanks for reading and following.
PWC

The Same Welder Quals Over and over and...

Paul,
Why do companies require so many different test from one place to the next if your always doing the same kind of work?
Jacob M.

Jacob,
Certain tests are required to qualify you for the correct material, process, thickness and position.  The code you're welding to will specify the test requirements.  Often, these tests can look far different than the actual welding you'll do in production or on the job site.
Each employer is responsible for their Welders qualifications, so if you hop from employer to employer each of those employers are required to give you the required tests.  The employer is held liable for your qualifications, so they would not typically accept a qualification from another employer.

PWC

Find Your Resident Experts

Hi Paul,
Quick question. Can a CWI write a welding procedure just being a CWI? Or does the company he works for engineering department have to give him the power to?

Unknown

Whomever you are,

Becoming a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) does not, in-and-of-itself, qualify you as the one who writes Weld Procedures (WPS).  Codes and standards will require that we use “Sound Engineering Judgement” and AWS QC1 - Specification for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors states “…the CWI shall: 11.2.1 Undertake and perform assignments only when qualified by training, experience, and capability.”

A designation as CWI (or CAWI & SCWI for that matter) does not qualify you for anything outside the scope of visual inspection of welds/welding.  CWI’s come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are Welders considering a career change, some are Engineers, Purchasing Agents, Lawyers, Supervisors or NDE Techs (nondestructive evaluation).  The list is pretty much endless.  All of those backgrounds can make great CWI’s, but none of those backgrounds make the individual an expert in the field of Code Compliance. 

Back in 1993 I was a 3^rd shift Welder who dreamed of bigger things.  My employer gave me the opportunity to take the AWS Seminar and CWI Exam.  Shortly after passing the Quality Mgr recruited me to his department for a short-term project of reviewing the companies ASME & AWS WPS’s, PQR’s and Welder Qualification.  Everything I knew about the subject I had just recently learned in a 1 week seminar.  I was nowhere near ready.

After about a week of banging my head, falling asleep reading and making zero progress, that Quality Mgr suggested I enlist the help of others, and that’s what I did.  I found that all throughout our company we had resident experts on some portion of the subject matter. 

Long story short, I mottled through with the help of just about every department in the company and came up with my first Weld Quality Program.  As difficult and frustrating as it was, it was an experience that changed me as a Welder and now, rookie QC inspector (6 months earlier I couldn’t spell QC).

So, none of that actually answers your question… or does it?  Who has, or gives, the power is not the real question here.  Who has the responsibility? is.  The responsibility lies with your Company, and as I found out early in my career, nothing less than the whole company is what it takes.

Good Luck,

PWC

Don't forget to Ping that Weld

Paul, Got a question for you. I work in the mines, when we are welding something thick our boss tells us to "ping" our welds (excessive chipping /with air-chipper). I've never heard of that before. What’s your input?
Matt

Matt, Your Boss is offering some good advice.  He's actually asking you to peen your weld (I'm sure he says "ping" but this is what he means).
Peening a weld helps reduce what's called "residual stress". When you heat and cool metal it wants to move, but typically the weldment doesn't allow it to move. This builds residual stress in the part.  When residual stress exceeds "Yield Strength" you'll get distortion.  When residual stress exceeds "Tensile Strength" you'll get weldment failure.
Also, welding screws with the materials grain structure (at an atomic level). There are several ways to deal with this. You can Post Weld Heat Treat the weldment: raising it to what's called the transition temperature (Around 1600f), holding it there for some predetermined time and then allowing it to cool in some controlled manner. Or you could apply vibration (vibratory stress relief), vibrating the weldment during welding and shortly thereafter. Or you can peen, hitting the weldment with a peening hammer (or a scaler) to help reduce this stress.
So, what your Boss has you doing is stress relieving each pass to reduce distortion and /or the risk of cracking.  Listen to him.

Good question.
PWC

Become the "Qualification Guru of Choice"

Hello Paul,

Much like yourself, I am a CWI, CWE, teaching welding classes and following the guidelines of AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel.

I have purchased a number of the pre-qualified weld procedures from the AWS bookstore that fit the specific circumstances of the most common welding practices used in our area (6010 open root, 7018 fill/cover passes).  These weld procedures are referenced in the area on the WPS for welding procedure.

Students are given a written, step by step procedure with illustrations, dimensions and weld parameters for the fit-up and welding of their test plates. Each section must be followed by the students, and signed by the Instructors. The guided bend test is performed by a qualified AWS CWI, and the test results are documented by the same Welding Inspector.

My question is: does this weld test constitute a Welding Certification?

W.P.

 My answer is: It does, but will the contractors, manufacturers or company the Welder works for accept it?

AWS D1.1 tells us that Qualification (not “Certification”) is the responsibility of the “Contractor”.  They can “farm” the work of qualifying a welder out to an educational facility, but the responsibility for that Welder Qualification still falls on the contractor.  That’s the reason contractors give their own welding test regardless of any past qualifications the welding candidate may have.

Setting up a “Certification” program (meaning; backing up a Welders qualification with documentation) in a vocational school isn’t uncommon, but if that program is sold to Welders as a means of becoming “Certified”, you’ve done those Welders a disservice. They could go through your certification process not understanding that their new “Certification” is not valid anywhere.

Setting up that same “Certification” program and making your ”pitch” to area employers as the 3rd party qualification guru of choice would be far more honest and code user friendly.

I spent many years in the welding industry filling the role of Welding Engineer (The person responsible for the qualification of persons and processes), Welder qualification was a messy and time consuming part of my job.  When testing Welders “off the street” I would have a 10/1 pass rate (and then my 1 would fail the piss test).  I would always look to my area technical schools to help me with that, but I found either a welding program that didn’t give me confidence that ALL the requirements of qualification would be adhered to, or the program was nonexistent.

What do I mean by adhered to?:

•  Test plate fit-up met the WPS requirements

•  Test plate position was maintained from start to finish

•  The root pass was visually inspected (by someone who knows the acceptance criteria) and found acceptable

•  Fill passes were randomly monitored

•  The cover pass met the acceptance criteria without requiring repair to do so

•  The bend coupons were from the correct location and same test plate (I use steel stamps)

•  Removal of the backing and weld reinforcement did not fall below the plane of the base material

•  The samples were bent in the correct fixture

•  The person evaluating the bend samples understood the acceptance criteria

Seems simple enough, but at all of the locations I evaluated over my career, one or more (usually many more) of the requirements listed above were not met.

There’s a great need for the service you’re suggesting, just insure you are selling it to the right people.

Good Luck,

PWC

AWS-CWI's, Who needs 'em?

Good Morning,

I am very interested in a research article into industry perception of the overall value of the AWS CWI Certification. Many organizations have established training and certification programs internally that applies job scope specific training to inspectors while it seems that the AWS CWI training and exam is too general and wide ranging? Just looking for others opinions on this.

Thank you,
Victor K.

Hi Victor,

Although most codes accept the credentials of a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) for visual inspection of welds, they DON'T REQUIRE that the Inspector be a CWI.  What they DO REQUIRE is that your Inspectors be qualified and that qualification be documented.  Those are two very important requirements; qualified & documented.  They are the requirements of welding codes that I will find not being adhered to when I'm conducting Fabricator/Manufacturer audits with in-house qualified Inspectors.

In your letter you state, "Many organizations have established training and certification programs internally that applies job scope specific training to inspectors..."  I've worked for many manufacturers and have developed those exact programs, but each program I developed insured that my Inspectors were "qualified" and that qualification was "documented". 

It is common in industry today to claim, "Our Welder is our first Inspector."  That's a great approach, but again, to make that claim, your Welders would be required to be qualified as Inspectors (don't confuse this with qualified as Welders) and their qualifications would need to be documented.

There is a document published by the American Welding Society (AWS) to help you develop that training and documentation; AWS-B5.1, "Specification for the Qualification of Welding Inspectors".  It is a terrific guide for developing a visual Welding Inspector program.  Programs developed by a knowledgeable Welding Inspector/Engineer to AWS-B5.1 would typically be excepted by your customers and/or governing agencies.  I have often found, once I've developed an "in-house" Inspector qualification, it was easier to evaluate employees and determine which inspectors may be ready to take the next step to certification.

It is typically your customers or governing agencies that put the requirement in contract documents that visual Welding Inspectors "shall" be AWS-CWI's (meaning certified to AWS-QC1-"Standard for AWS Certification of Welding Inspectors").  When listed in contract documents there's no "wiggle-room" for alternative qualification programs. 

From my own experience, walking onto a project overseen by an AWS-CWI gives me confidence that the Inspector has a good rounded background in all the different areas Inspectors need to understand.  Those areas include; Process, Code Requirements, Inspection Techniques and Metallurgy.  When I'm asked to be a 3rd party Inspector, and I find myself in a manufacturing environment where Inspectors are trained in-house, I tend to ask a series of questions that help me evaluate the qualifications of the other Inspectors.  I want to feel confident that they understand the requirements and the acceptance criteria for the weldments they inspect.  That is a bad time to find out they don’t, and I'll always ask to see their documentation.

I understand folks believing that Certification to AWS-QC1 (AWS-CWI) can, at times, be over-kill for some inspection requirements.  When an alternative program is developed you must insure that it is developed by an individual with a well-rounded understanding of welding requirements.  The kind of well-rounded understanding you'd typically find in a CWI.

Thanks for your question.
PWC

No means No

Paul,
Here’s a question. I’m certified through the Iron Workers Union and I been welding for almost 19 years. Everywhere I've ever worked they says no welding downhill and if you weld downhill you won't pass the structural test.  When running a vertical weld with 7018 rod is it correct to run a downhill pass before you start your vertical ups on Structural Steel? (This email was in response to welding per AWS D1.1:2015 Structural Code – Steel)
Joshua R.

Joshua,
I guess the short answer is "No".
To do so, you would need a weld procedure (WPS/PQR) that qualifies welding vertical up & down with E7018.  You might struggle to find an electrode manufacturer that would support vertical down with E7018.  We’re required to use electrodes within the manufacturer’s requirements.
You (the Welder) would also need to have taken a vertical up and a vertical down Welder Qualification test with E7018 (or another Low-Hydrogen electrode).  These would be F4 electrodes.  Welding vertically down is often done with F3 electrodes, but a structural test with an F3 (E6010) will not qualify you to weld with an F4 (E7018).
I always say that the pre-qualified section of AWS-D1.1 (Clause 3 – Prequalified Weld Procedure Requirements) is filled with good engineering advice.  My “day job” consists of Ultrasonic Testing (UT) of steel structures.  Often, when I find rejects, I also find that some requirement of Clause 3 was not met. When asked, “What should we do now?” my response is always the same, “Meet the Clause 3 requirements.”  That’s not often a popular response.
Clause 3, wouldn't allow welding vertically down with E7018, so again, my best answer is still, “No”.

Good Luck,
PWC

Radiograph and IP (off The Facebook)

James H
I recently had a friends weld get rejected by xray for a concave bead.  Repaired it, reshot it, and it came back rejected for IP.  Two times in this last year I've heard this. Both times, same example. Is it just a bad xray tech or is it a change in the rules today?

Paul W Cameron - CWI
A friend eh?
Let me preface this by saying, "I'm no RT Guy." but, a concave bead in a radiograph could easily mask Incomplete Joint Penetration (IP).
A concave bead will appear darker (because it's thinner) than the base material around it when viewed in a radiograph. Once that concave bead is repaired (adding more weld [making it thicker then base material]) the area that was once dark is now light and any IP would be clearly visible.

Great Question!
PWC
https://www.facebook.com/PaulWCameronCWI

WPS & PQR for Dummies

Hey Paul,
I'm reading up on the proper procedure and practices for developing a WPS and PQR, my question is, do you know of any resources that give a sort of 'WPS & PQR For Dummies'.
At current I'm reading through section 4 of D1.1, and taking notes as to what is required. The process we'll be qualifying is an in house change (bevel angle, and a slight change of amperage and travel speed.) that will be implemented into production.
From my limited perspective I'll be writing down the proposed values on the PQR, send it out for testing, if it comes back with a passing marks, I'll used that information to create a WPS.
However, on the PQR forms we have here, there is a line for "Governing WPS"...something about your seminar mentioning "Which comes first, WPS, or PQR" comes to mind, however I'm unable to to more than remember that idea.
Any help on the how-to is much appreciated! And also, do you have some sort of donation or fund in your name? I feel guilty asking for your assistance without some way to pay you back. If you've any ideas, let me know!
Thanks again!
Neil

Hey Neil,

WPS & PQR for Dummies… I like that.
You may find AWS-B2.1 helpful (https://pubs.aws.org/p/1245/b21b21m2014-specification-for-welding-procedure-and-performance-qualification).
Start by writing a “Preliminary WPS” (This could be considered a “Governing WPS”).  This isn’t a real, qualified WPS, it is simply a list of what you’d like your final WPS to look like.  Write each of the essential (and non-essential) variables, as you would like to see them.  Then work backwards to figure out what PQR(s) you’ll need to qualify them (notice, it could be several).
Starting with a Preliminary WPS helps keep you on track and keeps you from making the common mistake of finishing all your testing and concluding with an, “Oh Crap!... (insert problem here)”.  Problems like, “I should have used a Group II steel.” Or “I should have dropped the plate temperature to 50 degrees before starting the root pass (or fill pass).” Or “What was I thinking using a 4 in. pipe?” Or “I should have used a square groove.”  You get my drift.
Once you have a Preliminary WPS, break down each variable and ask yourself,  “What do I need to do to achieve that?”
Chances are your finished WPS will have greater ranges than your Preliminary because you’ll be working with real data.

As for your specific need (bevel angle, and a slight change of amperage and travel speed).  You may find that your original PQR already qualified the joint and parameters to within the ranges you are shooting for.  If so, you simply have to revise, or write an additional WPS.  If not, just go through the steps I laid out above.

This line kinda creeps me out, “I'll be writing down the proposed values on the PQR, send it out for testing, if it comes back with a passing marks, I'll used that information to create a WPS”.
That sounds a little, just-throw-it-over-the-wall-ish to me.  Let me break it down…
You’ll be:
• Writing down the proposed values
• Taking them to the Welder/Technician for feedback
• Observing, measuring and documenting as those proposed values are utilized
• Determining visual acceptance
• Sending the weldment out for NDE and destructive testing
• Reviewing the test results for compliance
• Using your collected data to develop a WPS
You have to be the one insuring every step was followed.  You’ll need to wear the welding helmet to insure technique was correct.  You’ll need to insure the final weldment met the acceptance criteria before NDE/Destructive testing.

And finally (and most important) yes, I have a GoQuenchMe campaign that runs continually.  You show up in my part of the country or I show up in yours and you have to buy the first round.  I believe in keeping it simple.

Cheers!
PWC

"Common Sense" not always That common

Hello Paul,
I was hired into the quality group at a company  alongside three other CWI's last October.  I'd been asked to do a lot of paperwork type activities until this last July when they needed
that fourth CWI on the floor.
I seem to have put the floor into shock... for example: for inspecting parts to the tolerances on the drawing and writing a nonconformance when it's out of that tolerance range.  The other inspectors had been trying to convince me to apply "common sense" to let the parts through anyway, even if that meant the associated paperwork doesn't line up with what the physical part is.  I'm still the same person I was when I came through the code clinic, you can guess how the workplace has become increasingly hostile towards me yet again.

I write to ask two quick questions to verify if my thought process is correct if you have a moment:

1. Detailed vs. fit-up tolerances.  The code and chatter on the AWS forum eludes to fit-up tolerances applying to the as detailed one.  So if detailed gave me +10 degrees, fit-up would give an additional 10 degrees - stacking the two together.  I thought I distinctly remembered from the code clinic that the tolerances do not stack, but that both apply to the original, 45 degrees for example.  So the max. would be 55 degrees end of story.  I am not able to find the support in the code for that and was hoping to double check my memory on that.

2. Starts and stops of intermittent welds.  It seems that the D1.1 exception for filling a crater to the full cross section outside of the intermittent area has been taken to the level that the code doesn't apply outside of the intermittent length.  Doesn't it still say we should have complete fusion, and smooth transitions - not worms at the start and stop of those?

Just thought I would check in to make sure I'm not getting off base here.
Thanks,

Jessica P

Hey Jessica,

Let me get right to answering your questions...

When it comes to “AS Fit-up” vs “As Detailed” tolerances, during the seminar I will always emphasize, “For the purpose of this test, do not stack the tolerances.”  I’ll then go on to say, that may happen in life, but do not do it for the purpose of this test.” CWI’s should never use the “As Detailed” tolerances... only the engineer/designer of the part/joint should.  Let me give you some examples:

1.)  A Designer/Engineer calls out a B-U2a with a 45 deg Groove angle.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 40-55 degrees.

2.)  A Designer/Engineer calls out a B-U2a with a 55 deg Groove angle (he/she applied the “As Detailed” tolerances).  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 50-65 degrees.

3.)  A welding symbol calls for a 30 degree V-Groove on a Butt Joint.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 25-40 degrees.

4.)  A welding symbol calls for a 35 degree V-Groove on a Butt Joint (engineer applied the “As Detailed” tolerances).  The shop floor/Welder/CWI can apply the “As Fit-up” tolerances ONLY and the Groove angle can now range from 30-45 degrees.
All those scenarios are perfectly acceptable for that joint type.  The Designer/Engineer has one type tolerance they design within, and the shop floor/Welder/CWI have a different tolerance they work within.

Now let me give you some scenarios that DO NOT WORK:

5.)  A Designer/Engineer calls out a B-U2a with a 45 deg Groove angle.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI applies the “As Detailed” &“As Fit-up” tolerances and the Groove angle now ranges from 40-65 degrees.

6.)  A welding symbol calls for a 30 degree V-Groove on a Butt Joint.  The shop floor/Welder/CWI applies the “As Detailed” & “As Fit-up” tolerances and the Groove angle now ranges from 25-50 degrees.

The shop floor/Welder/CWI should never stack the tolerances on their own.  Again, one set of tolerances is for the Engineer/Designer, another is for the shop floor/Welder/CWI.
Clear as mud, eh?

As for the intermittent fillet weld...
The crater can remain unfilled (weld is undersize) as long as the crater falls outside the required weld length.  All other acceptance criteria have to be met for the entire weld length (including the crater).  So unacceptable contours, unacceptable undercut, unacceptable porosity, cracks, overlap in the crater would still render the weld “Unacceptable”.

As for your work environment...

Working with other CWI’s can, at times, get challenging.  Like Welders, not all have the same skill set.
I took a position once and was over 5 CWI.  In my first week I found that all Welders were qualified with FCAW but 75% of the welding was with GMAW.  I called each into my office to ask about this.  The responses were pretty lame, “That’s what we’ve always done.” “You can’t change things around here.” “There really no difference.”

Don’t Be That Guy/Gal!  Stick to the requirements and intent of the code, and when there’s a disagreement don’t argue, “Put your finger on it”.  Better to have integrity then a stable job (I’m sure some would not agree with that line).  My unstable work history has worked well for me.

I hope that helps.  Hang in there, you know this shit.

PWC

Essential and non-Essential Variables... they can make ya nuts

Dear sirs, I have a doubt about WPS (Weld Procedure Specification) by API 1104 - 2013. For me is not clear if “is outside diameter an essential variable in wps api 1104”, because of in 5.3.2.4 say “The ranges of specified outside diameters (ODs) and specified wall thicknesses over which the procedure is applicable shall be identified. Groupings are shown in 6.2.2 d) and 6.2.2 e).”, and in 5.4 is not included as an Essential Variables.
Thanks regards
Rafael

Rafael,
Essential and non-Essential Variables... they can make ya nuts.
We're often familiar with Essential Variable (those variables that, once changed beyond specific limits, require re-qualification of a WPS.), but what is a non-Essential Variable?
These variables may not show up in a table or list telling us what are allowable variations but they are equally important when writing your WPS.  I often find them left off of WPS's and that only leads to confusion when customers, inspectors or Welders try and interpret or apply your WPS.

When a non-Essential Variable is changed no additional testing is required, but the WPS needs to be changed to reflect the new variable.
Some examples would be:
     *Base materials - Although base material Groups can be Essential, the individual material types are considered non-Essential.  You completed a WPS of a specific material and it qualified you to within a Group.  If you want to change (or develop new) your WPS to reflect a different material within the Group
it is simply a matter of paperwork.
     *Joint Type - Once I qualify a specific joint type that test qualifies a large number of joint types.  I only need to change my paperwork to reflect a different joint design.  (You can now see where a single PQR can qualify a large number of WPS's.)
     *Electrode extension - As a Welder I can vary current by as much as 50 amps by simply changing my stick-out.
     *Electrode type - (GTAW)
     *Technique - Can I weave? Can I whip? Am I allowed to oscillate?  All should be addressed.
It surprised me, that Diameter is not be an Essential Variable per Section 5.4 of API-1104.  But listing it on the WPS is required.
“5.3 Welding Procedure Specification
5.3.1 General
The welding procedure specification shall include the information specified in 5.3.2 where applicable.”
So thickness IS an Essential Variable but Diameter is considered a non-Essential Variable.  Both must be listed on the WPS.
Good Question, Good Luck,
PWC

"Scare a moose, scare a moose, will you do my fan Van Gogh"

Paul

I find myself rejecting a lot of welds. I don't want to fail them and find out that I misinterpreted something. When there is undercut in small amounts throughout the length of the weld I'm still not clear on what they mean by "...in two inches up to 12 inches..." (AWS-D1.1, Table 6.1(7))  so I find myself pretty much disregarding the 1/32nd undercut rule, unless the weld is less than 2 inches long. And I just use 1/16.
David N.

All right, here we go...
Table 6.1 (7), Undercut:
"shall not exceed 1/32 in. except...Shall not exceed 1/16 in. for more than 2 in. in 12 in." (artistic liberties taken liberally)
So, undercut that is not more than 1/32" is acceptable. Period!  Also, undercut greater than 1/32" that does not exceed 1/16" and it's accumulated length comes to 2" or less is also acceptable.
Example 1: You're looking at a 3" weld. It's got 1/16" of undercut (depth) for 2" of its length. It's acceptable.
Example 2: A 3" weld is part of a 3 on 6 intermittent fillet weld. Imagine 3 of those fall with in 12". One 3" weld has undercut and the undercut is 1/16" (depth) for 3/4" (length). Another 3" weld is undercut  at 2 places. The undercut is 1/16" deep for 3/4" and again for 1/2"‎ of length.  The last 3" weld has 1/32" for its entire length. These 3 welds falling with in the same 12" of a joint length would be acceptable (Total length of undercut greater than 1/32" deep equals 2").
Now my head hurts.
PWC

Ahh... finally it makes sense.  Now I'll have to read it until it's burned into my brain.  I never put it together that they were talking about intermittent welds.  I wonder if everyone else assumed I understood that, or if they don't know either.
Thank you!  You have saved me much self-doubt!
David N.

No, no, no... I simply used intermittent welds as an example. If you had a weld that was 8" long, the same rules would apply.If it had undercut its entire length that did not exceed 1/32"‎ it's acceptable.  Along that same weld, at one location the undercut is 1/16" deep for 1/4", then 1/16" deep for 1/2", then again for 1", then again for 1/4", that weld would still be acceptable. (as long as the individual undercuts greater than 1/32" but not over 1/16" do not total more then 2" of length in any 12")
Again, my head hurts.
PWC

Holy crap! I understand even better now! So the length they are talking about is how far along the weld the undercut runs.  That is the biggest part I wasn't grasping before. That's so simple... And now quite embarrassing. No wonder nobody could explain it to me, it should have been obvious. Every time I read about the two inches, I was thinking it had something to do with the length weld, not the length of the undercut portion.

I guess I am finding the downfall in studying by myself! I couldn't get past my initial understanding. Kind of like when you learn the words to a song incorrectly, and even after you find out the correct words, you still sing them wrong out of habit... Okay, fine. Maybe it's nothing like that!
David N.

That is Exactly what it's like.
"Scare a moose, scare a moose, will you do my fan Van Gogh"
PWC

What Goes In a Visual Inspection Report?

Hi, Paul,

Could you let me know what information you think should be included in a visual welding inspection report?

I’m seeing a lot about what the inspector should be verifying, but not the actual items that should be in the report.

 I appreciate your help.

  

Best Regards,

 Anthony N.

Good question.  For NDE (nondestructive evaluation) we typically go to our code books to find the correct forms required.  Although using those specific forms isn’t a requirement, they are a great guide to determine what information we need to capture. 

Visual Inspection (VT [visual testing]) is a form of NDE, but I’m not aware of a code supplied form for recording it.  There is no simple form to download and fill out when it comes to VT.

In my day-to-day, I may use a spread sheet, a Word doc, or the old reliable composition note book.  It all depends on my situation.

As for what information to capture? My guidelines are; keep it simple... Let’s assume AWS D1.1 is our code. Sub-Clause 6.9 states, “All welds shall be visually inspected...”  That doesn’t leave a lot of “wiggle-room”.  We know we have to look at all welds.  It also states, “...and shall be acceptable if the criteria of Table 6.1 are satisfied.”  So now we know our acceptance criteria.

At a minimum your visual inspection (VT) report should state:

What was the date of fabrication?

What was the part/print number?

What was the welds location?

What was the acceptance criteria? (i.e.: AWS D1.1:2010 Table 6.1, Statically Loaded)

Did it meet the requirement?

Did anything restrict your inspection? (i.e.: Part was galvanized, Root was lot accessible, Roof decking covered weld face...)

Was it acceptable?

What is the date of inspection?

...and always add your name (legibly), signature and CWI# (if applicable).
Remember, listen to your customer to gage the level of detail requested, but always make the report clear enough so you understand what was written long after the project is complete.

Good Luck,

PWC

Combination GMAW & FCAW

I was wondering if you could shed some light on this subject. We have two different processes being used, GMAW and FCAW. The GMAW is used for tacking stiffeners to panels up to 60 feet long the joint configuration is a T joint. The tacks are between 1/8" and 3/16" weld sizes and they vary from 3" to 4" in length about every 18" in between tacks.  The FCAW is then used from a welding gantry, welding over the previous tack welds from the GMAW with the FCAW process with a continuous weld.

D1.1 2010 in table 4.5 PQR Essential Variables. Comparing the processes there are substantial variables. Our thought is to run a PQR using the two processes together on a V groove weld to qualify both processes. GMAW and FCAW using 100% CO2 welding the root pass with GMAW and then the second pass with FCAW mixing the two processes until the groove joint is completed. Clause 4 in table 4.4 groove test figure 4.23 1 G test.

Will this suffice what we're trying to achieve? I appreciate your input on the matter.

Best Regards.
Gabriel M.

Gabriel,
There are a couple ways you could approach this.  First, are PQR's needed?  This should fall under prequalified unless I'm missing something.  If it is, all you'd need to do is write the prequalified WPS using both processes.

If it is not able to be considered prequalified you could do the required PQRs for each process (GMAW & FCAW).  Or, you could combine processes in your PQR's.  A GMAW root would be sufficient, then a FCAW fill and cover.  Don't switch back and forth between processes for the fill and cover, you are qualifying each to a depth (GMAW to about 3/16 and FCAW to the remainder).

Another option might be to qualify these fillet welds using a fillet welded T-Joint just like you do in production.

Keep in mind, all Welders shall be qualified.  If you are using both processes they will require qualification to both processes.

PWC

Preheat and Toe Cracks, Sounds Painful!

We have been welding on a coupler ladder assembly for an ATB. (Articulated tug barge) It veries in thickness from 3"-1/2" up to 9" thick. The coupler ladder is structural casting ASTM A148-90-60 (Ce= 0.69 Pcm= 0.38) and is being welded to ABS Grade A 1"-1/2" plate and also ABS AH36 3/4" plate. The current WPS is for FCAW it states to use filler metal AWS Specification: A5.20 and AWS Classification: E71T-1CDH8 and to preheat to 300* F. We are having some cracking problems on the weld toe to the cast parent metal. On some of the research that I did it states to use an E81T1-Ni1C wire and to preheat to 400*F. In clause 3 of AWS D1.1 2010 on 3.5.1 base metal / thickness combination. (base on the category and thickness) shall be the highest of these minimum preheats. Would you suggest to increase the preheat to 400* F and use the E81T1 electrode?

Best Regards.
Gabriel M.

The 70ksi electrode should work and the 300 degree preheat should be sufficient. You should have a PQR that was used to qualify these materials. If you do not then you should start there.
My experience with preheat...
When a 300 degree preheat is required keep in mind that the measurement to deturmine if the preheat's been met would be a minimum of 3 inches from the weld. That's 3 inches or the thickness of the material, which ever is more. You mentioned 9 inch material. That preheat would need to be measured 9 inches from the weld.
With toe cracks in high strength material (that A148 is a Class 3) I would suspect preheat and more then that, I would suspect a preheat that is not being applied the full material thickness distance.
PWC

Those Canucks take their welding seriously

Paul,

I know what you're thinking, another early Saturday morning question.

I've been looking at the requirements of obtaining a CWB inspector certification. Am I seeing this correctly? A CWB inspector can apply for a CWI by reciprocity by nothing more than an application and fees. But a CWI who wants to be a CWB, in this case a level 2, would fill out the application, pay fees, and still have to take an exam?

Doesn't strike me as "equivalent" or fair.

Tim C. CWI, CWE

Level II VT, PT, MT, UTT

Tim,

Your assessment is correct.   For a CWB to apply for a CWI it’s just a fee and some paperwork.  For a CWI to apply for a CWB it’s a test.  Those Canucks take their welding seriously.

I was the Quality Manager in a pole manufacturing company that was CWB Certified.  Every 6 months I had to hire a CWB engineer to audit my organization (and it was an in-depth look at our welding).  There were a lot of hoops to jump through, but if we wanted to sell power-line poles in Canada it was a requirement.

I was also a contract CWI for a boss that was Canadian.  Anytime I mentioned my past work as a Welding Engineer he would go ballistic.  Calling yourself a Welding Engineer in Canada means you’ve met specific requirements in education and testing and if you referred to yourself as a Welding Engineer without meeting those requirements you could go to jail.

Some of the things I liked about working in a CWB shop: 1.) Welders had to retake their Welder Qualification Tests every 2 years.  I believe that helped maintain weld quality in our shop. 2.) Welder Qualifications were given using a Bevel Groove.  The first pass was a Fillet Weld of a specific size up against that square edge of the Bevel Groove.  The fillet had to have a restart in it. The location of the restart was marked, and 1 of the 3 required bend coupons had to contain that restart.

One of the things I didn’t like was that they consider FCAW and GMAW with a Metal-Cored wire (MCAW) the same process (for welder qualification purposes).  The Welding Engineer in me (said quietly so as not to be heard across the MN/Canadian border) sees these processes as requiring different skills.

When working in a shop that requires compliance to CWB and AWS this FCAW/MCAW thing reeks havoc.  In fact, when I showed up for my first week at this pole shop I learned that All of the Welders took a FCAW test to get their job, but the shop ran about a 50/50 mix of FCAW and GMAW using Metal-Core.  From a CWB perspective this was no “Biggie”, but from an AWS perspective (which was about 90% of what they did) no Welders were qualified for GMAW (and not one of the 4 CWI’s that worked there seemed concerned).  What a mess!

The way I turned that around was by using the CWB 2yr retesting requirement.  I gave MCAW tests, had them evaluated by the CWB to Canadian standards and evaluated them myself as a CWI to AWS standards.  At 6 month intervals, over a 2 year period, those Welder Qualifications were brought up to speed.

If I was an independent contract CWI I’d probably pursue the CWB route, but if you work in a shop that’s considering bringing in CWB work then CWB/CWI reciprocity is the least of your worries.

PWC

Fillet Welds on Corner Joints

Hello,
I have a question regarding D1.1 code.
My question is regarding the corner joints in the plates encompassing the columns. They are calling them Fillet welds, yet there is not any faying surface. D1.1 says a fillet can have up to 3/16ths misalignment (with certain stipulations) which is effectively is making the joint an open root CJP.

They are using a ceramic backing that (desired because of the tight fit around the square column plus the misalignment) is reducing the theoretical throat greatly. Now they are having substantial issues with cracking threw the throat, which isnt surprising.

My issue though is with the joint design; Im inclined to say it is not a fillet weld, but I cannot find a code reference to support that claim. And I cannot find a prequalified wps and joint config that in any way resembles this joint PJP or CJP groove.
Am I missing something in the code that resolves this? Specifically any denominational requirement for the length of faying surface on fillet welds? What course of action would you advise?
Thank you for any assistance,
- Caleb

Caleb,
I'm not sure of the plate thickness, it looks (from the photo) to be about 3/8”. If that's the case these 1/4" welds are undersized. That said:
This is a common Fillet weld on a Corner joint. If you have a copy of AWS D1.3 Fig 3.2a you'll see a picture of it.
Questions I would ask…
Does the shop/contractor have a WPS for welding this?  The fillet looks to have been done vertically down. This would require testing. What is the process used?  It looks to be GMAW-S. If so, this would require testing also.
I'm sure your cracking is due to insufficient throat. You can fix that by requiring multiple passes.
Here's where you should go with this…
Ask about the WPS and the process. If they are not in compliance, take out a rubber hose and beat them until they are (that’s a metaphor for fix that first 😊).
Ask the engineer to change the weld call out to:
Weld size = T (remember, T is thickness)
Require a Convex contour (that will insure the throat size)

That should do it.
PWC

Repair WPS

Paul,

When codes refer to a company having a "repair WPS", are they saying that a different test needs to be qualified other than the procedures that have already been qualified?

If this is the case, would you record the NDE, hold points, etc. that are required in the WPS? Sort of like, these are the steps and sequence of events that are required to take place.

 

Timothy C. CWI, CWE

ACCP Level II VT, PT

ASNT TC-1A Level II MT, UTT 

P.S, Thanks for the time you've taken over the years to let us ask, argue, talk through, and debate all the issues we come across. It only makes us better at what we do.

Tim,

And all this time I thought I was the only one that would get up at 6am on a Saturday with welding on the brain (I happened to be calibrating my UT scope when I got your email).

Let me concentrate on your first question as it would relate to AWS D1.1 (because you are right, the Bridge Code is more specific).

D1.1 requires a repair WPS, why would they state that? 

In most manufacturing environments we would have specific WPS’s for specific joint configurations, materials, positions welded… Let’s imagine the company "PWC Weld-All" had WPS's for all position, unlimited thickness, Base Metal Group 1 & 2 for Lap, T- (fillets & grooves), V-, Bevel and Square Groove Joints.  Your first impression would be that PWC has his shit together, right?  Now let's say PWC hired his brother (because his Mom made him) to punch bolt holes in steel with an Iron Worker.  Who could mess that up?  Well, his brother did and now you’ve got four 1- inch holes in the web of a S24x100 I-Beam.  The customer insists they be filled.  Which WPS will cover this repair?  Since the joint configuration now is a hole in a plate none of the existing WPS's will apply.  A new WPS will need to be developed which may or may not require testing (dependent on code requirements).

Here's another scenario… The base plate of a light pole tower is welded using FCAW-G.  While being erected the customers inspector finds unacceptable porosity and requires a repair.  That repair could be made using the same procedure used to manufacture the tower, but it wouldn’t be practical to use FCAW-G, in the field.  A procedure would need to be written (and possibly qualified) to complete this repair using another process (FCAW-S or SMAW). 

One last scenario… A crack in a weld is discovered in a Bevel-Groove.  The engineer determines it can be repaired.  This can typically be done using the original WPS.  While excavating you find this crack extends into base material.  Now your joint configuration will probably be outside the tolerances of your WPS, so another WPS will need to be written (and possibly qualified).

Often times the PQR's you've previously completed will cover the repair WPS, but you still need to write the new WPS. 

As the engineer I have written many repair WPS's.  When I do I will put language in there that is not typically found in a production WPS.  Things like, “Drill a X/X diameter hole at each tip of the crack to reduce the chances of growth.”  or, “Once  discontinuity is removed PT to insure its complete removal.” or, “MT each weld layer to insure soundness.” or “Never let my brother touch that machine again.”

So your repair WPS isn't anything different then any other WPS, you just want to insure that you've covered all your bases in regard to material, joint configuration, position before moving forward with the repair.

Ask me the time and I build you a watch.  Sorry about that.

PWC

Maybe B2.1 is the better choice...

 Hey Paul,

 It’s Kody P.  I was in your Minneapolis seminar, I was wondering if you would be willing to get me pointed the right direction for a PQR/WPS testing of pipe/tube to plate for fillets and PJP groves in AWS-D1.1?

The pipe/ tube is “unlisted” material of the following specs: A519 1026, A519 1026cw, A519 1026hr, A513 1026, A513 1026cw, (min yield is 35ksi – 70ksi grade dependent).  All are not pre-qualified or listed and the rings will be A36 or some grade of A514.  Size ranges from 2” OD tube 3/16 wall with 1/8” fillet and bevel to 20” + OD 2” wall with up to 1 ¼” fillet / bevel.  Plate ranges from 3/8” to 2”+

I know I need to do macro etches but I am a little confused as to how to get the tensile specimens /side bends for the sizes we are working with.

As of right now my thoughts are to purchase some large od tube/pipe and use that to cut coupons from to do 1G test plates to prove the process, Then do the fillets/PJP etches. If both are successful I could use both PQR’s to make a WPS and repeat for all combos. But then at that point should I use AWS-Fig. 4.10/4.11 or 4.23 for the 1G test set up?

Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated

Thank you

Kody P. Lead Inspector

Kody,

It’s amazing what you run into, isn’t it?  My first WPS experience as a “green” CWI was insuring the company I worked for met all the requirements to weld carbon and stainless to ASME.  Something I had zero experience with.  (I learned a lot… one mistake at a time)

First thing I would do if I were you would be to group the A519 grades and the A513 grades (what do I mean by that?).  Just find some A519 Grade 1026 and some A513 Grade 1026 (forget about those additional designators, they don’t amount to enough to matter.).

Next: Get yourself a copy of AWS-B2.1 Specification for Procedure and Performance Qualification.  In it you’ll find that the AWS groups your A519 into Group 2 and your A513 into Group 1 (or visa-versa, I don’t remember which).

Now…

This group of PQR's could get extremely complicated if you qualify to D1.1, so don’t.  Qualify to AWS B2.1 and just state that on your documentation.  Qualifying to B2.1 can be as simple as making the weldment just as you do in production and then cutting and etching the welds to insure you meet the size and soundness requirements.  You may have to do one for each pipe size (or significant change in part size) but that is a whole lot easier and can be done in pretty short order.

I have a lot of experience in writing WPS's for “Unlisted” steels and take it from me, meeting D1.1 with materials that aren’t the same shape (ones a tube and ones a plate) sucks.  I would never advise it.

Sounds to me like you are the perfect example of why the AWS came up with B2.1

That's my advice and I'm only 1/2 a beer into giving it, so it should still be good.
Let me know what you decide.

PWC